tv [untitled] November 22, 2011 4:00pm-4:30pm PST
president chiu: welcome back to the board of supervisors meeting for tuesday, november 22, 2011. could you please call the four- o'clock special order? >> items 23 through 26. a public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the planning commission to install a wireless telecommunication facility on located -- property located on larkin street. item 24 is approving the conditional use authorization at the larkin street address. item 25 is that motion
disapproving the approval of the conditional use authorization and 26 as the motion directing the preparations of findings. president chiu: this is a hearing in my district. both parties have agreed to continue to december 6. could i have a motion? without objection, these three items will be continued -- before we make a decision on the motion to continue, let me see if there are members of the public that wish to speak on whether we should continue this item to december 6. seeing none, there's no public comment. could we take the motion to continue to december 6 without objection? that shall be the case. without objection. if we could go to our second 4:00 p.m. special order, items 27 through 30. >> the hearing of persons
interested in the decision of the planning commission pose a 2006 authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility on property located at 199 leland avenue. item 28 is the motion approving conditional approval at leland avenue. item 29 is the motion disapproving the decision of the planning commission's decision netbook. directing the preparation of findings. president chiu: we have before us the appeal. for this hearing will consider whether or not to approve the decision of the planning commission's conditional use authorization to a still -- install and you antenna and related equipment and equipment cabinets in an existing three story building. and the 40x heigh at and
district. we will proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes for presentation by the appellant. up to 2 minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. we will hear four presentations from the planning department of up to 10 minutes and then a presentation from the project sponsor of up to 10 minutes. and up to 2 minutes per speaker in opposition, endeavour bottle by the appellant for up to three minutes. any questions about this procedure? let me ask supervisor cohen, do you have any additional comments? >> supervisor cohen:. thank you. we are considering a conditional use appeal for the proposed antennas at 199 leland avenue. i want to see a couple words. i have been involved with this proposal since at&t filed their application. i'm looking forward to hearing the arguments from the appellants as we -- as well as
the responses from our planning department and project sponsor. i understand we have a number of individuals who have requested translation services. ray, are you here? from the office of civic engagement will be here to provide cantonese translation. during the public comment portion of the meeting. to the extent that you liked your comments translated, mr. law is willing to accommodate that. thank you. i ask additionally that given that he is the only individual available to translate today, there may be a need to take a brief recess during the hearing to allow him to take a break. thank you, mr. president. president chiu: thank you. with that, why don't we hear from the appellant? you have up to 10 minutes to use as you see fit. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am speaking on behalf of the
appellant. since we learned less than two weeks ago we had qualified for this appeal and visitation values, their residents who have been leading this effort recently withdrew. i and others had to take over this case. we have not had the time to retain an expert and since the hearing is set before thanksgiving, we have asked at&t to agree to continue this hearing until december 13. just as they had agreed to continue to other antenna appeal hearings that were filed before hours. unfortunately, at&t refused to give our community the same courtesy extended to those other neighborhoods. my first request to you is to vote to continue a decision on our case until december 13 so that we may submit additional supporting materials including an expert report. in the meantime, i will attempt to do my best under these less
optimal circumstances. at&t has not met its burden of proof that these antennas are necessary, desirable, and compatible with our neighborhood. exhibit a of the appellant's of -- diggs it does which you have is the appellant's critique of the engineering report. that at&t had submitted to prove that the necessity for this wireless facility. the at&t engineer report is based on a simple -- a signal to noise analysis. one would expect such a report to identify the resources of this interference and describe how at&t has unsuccessfully attempted to update them. leaving only the addition of tennis at 199 leland avenue as the solution to at&t's problems. for the reasons stated in our analysis, the report does not do
so and therefore does not prove a need for antennas at 199 leland avenue. to give a picture of the current state of at&t's wireless network, mr. spences' uses the analogy, "people speaking the same language being able to communicate and understand each other, but other languages are perceived as noise and rejected." a better example is a roomful of people, all of whom are carrying on conversations at the same language. the person you are conversing with is having trouble hearing you. instead of everyone loring the volume of their speech, so that everyone can understand the conversation they are engaged in, he began shouting to be heard. soon everyone in every conversation is shouting to be heard with likely very few being understood at all. putting up antennas instead of identifying the interference problems in this existing network is the equivalent of shouting in a crowded room
instead of bringing the level of all the conversations down to a manageable level so that the conversations are intelligible. mr. spencer's report makes the case that the design of at&t's own wireless network in san francisco is causing the problem is discusses and that at&t is not actively managing its own network to optimize service to its customers. mr. spencer's report is contradictory -- contradicted by the evidence we submitted. the results of the survey we conducted of at&t customers in the neighborhood 199 leland avenue. which is summarized in exhibit b of the appellant's exhibits. of the 110 wireless customers surveyed, 87% rated their in building at&t wireless service as good or better. a 47-77% rated their in
building internet service as good or better. none of the people surveyed rated the service is poor. why do we get these results when at&t claims it needs more antennas? the wireless industry of which at&t is a major player, is on regulated in terms of any auditing or ongoing monitoring of network management to insure that network, management is being done comfortably. it is the equivalent of pg&e not testing the underground gas pipeline network and therefore not knowing what is under the ground. it was only after the san bruno disaster that regulations were imposed on pg&e and it was forced to do the kinds of pipeline testing they should have been doing all along. with results like the ones that have been in the news. but no one is overseeing at&t's management of its own network in san francisco and therefore, mr.
spencer's report does not prove that adding new antennas instead of actively managing at&t's network is the least intrusive means to solve any problems that might exist. in short, the information provided in the report does not meet at&t's burden of proof that it needs to install more antennas at 199 leland avenue. this industrial commercial wireless facility is also not desirable at this location. we have collected over 1000 signatures of neighborhood residents who oppose this wireless facility which included in the planning department report to you in this case. in the face of these numbers, at&t cannot reasonably claim that this project is "desirable" from the perspective of residents that live in the neighborhood surrounding 199 leland avenue. at&t's industrial commercial
wireless facility is not compatible with our surrounding residential neighborhood. 199 leland avenue is the residential apartment building housing seniors and people with disabilities. we believe by installing this equipment in the basement, space for parking would be lost, and mobility of people in the wheelchair's would be impacted in the use of this basement space. at&t also proposes installing lead acid backup batteries at this location. these lead acid batteries pose a variety of toxic chemical, fire, an explosive hazards that are documented by the battery's owned manufacturers which is included in the exhibits to the report to you in this case. the potential hazards for electrical issues and battery operations further prove that this type of industrial, commercial equipment is simply not compatible with senior and
disabled housing in a residential lee's own area. finally, at&t has failed to demonstrate it has explored all available alternatives to the proposed 199 leland avenue location. a petition circulated at the leland avenue fair in september states that at&t is installing these antennas to "provide improved coverage and better wireless service along the highway when a 1 and 284 corte or." these antennas are designed to provide service for people driving by on highways 101 and 280. why have they not been tempted to install them there? after 3rd teen alternative locations, at&t has considered there is no evidence that at&t has approached caltrans and asked to install antennas along these highways where they probably belong. since at&t has not presented
credible evidence that [unintelligible] it again has not met this burden of proof that this is the least intrusive means for selling its -- filling its alleged gap in service. for all these reasons, i asked you to please vote to deny at&t a permit at this location. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to the appellant? ok. at this time, why do we move -- don't we move to supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: we are required to limit our consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and the paper submitted and we do that. i know that anecdotally, a lot of people complain about at&t's
service in san francisco as opposed to verizon. and i am wanting to see if you as the appellant could address that issue because we cannot rely on anecdotal from outside of this hearing but as the appellant, and someone who is representing the appellant, is that something that you are aware of, or that has been considered in this appeal in terms of the at&t's service level? >> we have done the survey already and as i reported earlier. we know the result that all the people we surveyed around that area, they all said they were good or better than that. so we now -- i also have friends and neighbors who use that. we feel that the service there is adequate or better. we do not need that. i did talk to their representative -- everybody
would be happy but i have not heard anything. i do not think anything has been done about that. supervisor wiener: it is your position apart from this exact address that there is no need for at&t's service enhancement anywhere in the area, in the neighborhood? >> because we have adequate services for everything, i think they could consider other sites that have that lead. this -- they are trying to serve the motorists along 101 and 280. we are asking them to consider alternatives sides. this would be a win-win situation. supervisor wiener: it is your view that in your neighborhood and surrounding, there is no need whatsoever for at&t service enhancement? >> we do not need it at this particular building. supervisor wiener: what about in the neighborhood? >> we have done over 100 surveys, we went around and talk
to a lot of people and everybody told us the reception is great. we feel it is fine. supervisor wiener: what percentage was that? >> 77% and 80 something percent. you have it in your -- sorry about that. supervisor wiener: ok. >> is it exhibit -- let's see. exhibit a, i believe. excuse me. ok. excellent is 39%, good, 57. poor is nothing.
tixla is 26, good is love and, if there is 11, and four is nothing. we have 54% rated their in homes as excellent, 77% rated their in home as good or better. and -- this is the data we gathered from all the individuals we're serving. supervisor wiener:. -- supervisor wiener: thank you. president chiu: other any questions? supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: i have a statement. i wanted to make an announcement that we're going to be having simultaneous translation. we're going to be disseminating the headsets for folks now that we have two translators. >> thank you for this great effort. it is needed to bring more
people to be in city hall. i really appreciate this effort. this way to get them to understand the proceedings. thank you very much. president chiu: supervisor mar? supervisor mar: victor lim is there on my staff who could also transmit. if you have -- need help, he is there. >> mr. lim is very good transmitter. he's very confident. thank you. president chiu: any other questions? why don't we move to public comment on -- we should invite the translator so we can simultaneously translate.
>> could be afternoon -- good afternoon. i have been here for seven come almost eight years. the planning department identifies this [unintelligible] which is predominantly residential. under the 199 [unintelligible] telecommunications service facility guidelines, 199 leland avenue is a low preference location. the only reason this building is considered preference to every
zero is that -- as a [unintelligible] to the neighbors. because we were never given notice, 199 leland avenue should be considered a preference 5 location. at&t must provide that they can look at all possible alternatives before starting this building. at&t's engineering report does not mention that at&t can improve its service in the area by actively managing -- to reduce any interference problem in my half. [unintelligible] please deny the permit for this